Analyst Manish Anand breaks down why the Modi government’s contentious UGC regulation threatens academic freedom, institutionalizes caste politics, and creates a “climate of fear” on campuses
By TRH Op-Ed Desk
New Delhi, March 18, 2026 — The Supreme Court of India has stayed the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) contentious anti-discrimination regulation — a move that analysts say has sent shockwaves through the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s policy establishment.
“There is considerable fear in the BJP camp right now,” said Manish Anand, geopolitics analyst and host of The Raisina Hills. “The regulation has backfired spectacularly.”
Anand quoted Ravi Shanker Kapoor, a former Resident Editor of The Pioneer and Senior Editor at Financial Express, presented ten pointed arguments against the regulation, warning that it represents what he called “one of the most dangerous policy instruments the Modi government has introduced in the education sector.”
Equity Without Accountability
Anand’s first argument targets the regulation’s foundational logic. “Equity as a concept demands measurable outcomes,” he said. “But the moment you chase outcomes for one specific group, you automatically disadvantage another. That is not equity — that is structured inequality with a new name.”
Revenge Is Not Justice
His second argument challenges the moral framing behind the policy. “Centuries of historical oppression cannot justify present-day negative discrimination against communities that bear no personal guilt for those historical wrongs,” Anand argued. “Revenge dressed as justice is still revenge.”
Whataboutery Over Substance
Anand’s third point dismissed what he described as deflective reasoning by the regulation’s defenders. “When supporters respond to legal arguments against this regulation by simply saying ‘but what about SC/ST rights,’ they are not engaging with the argument — they are evading it.”
UGC Row: Ad Hominem Politics Hijacks Higher Education Debate?
Ad Hominem Labelling
The fourth argument attacks what Anand called bad-faith debate tactics. “Opponents of the regulation are being branded as ‘anti-Dalit’ simply for challenging it on merit,” he said. “That is intellectually dishonest. A legal argument deserves a legal counter-argument — not a label.”
Built-In Discrimination
Anand’s fifth point strikes at the regulation’s structural design. “Any government instrument that explicitly designates only SC, ST, and OBC communities as eligible complainants while providing no parallel mechanism for other groups is — by definition — discriminatory legislation,” he stated.
No Penalty for False Accusations
His sixth argument focuses on a glaring legal gap. “The regulation contains no penal provision for false or malicious complaints,” Anand noted. “Without that safeguard, any candidate who fails a selection process can simply file an accusation, and the entire selection panel becomes immediately liable. That is not rule of law.”
A Climate of Fear in Academia
The seventh argument addresses institutional damage. “No meaningful academic work — research, teaching, examination — can function inside a climate of fear,” Anand said. “This regulation manufactures exactly that climate. The only activity it enables is politics.”
Dividing Campuses Along Caste Lines
Anand’s eighth point connects the regulation to the BJP’s broader political contradictions. “The party that chants ‘bāṭeṃge to kaṭeṃge’ — ‘division leads to destruction’ — is simultaneously introducing campus legislation that can only produce caste-based conflict,” he observed sharply.
An Instrument of Extortion
His ninth argument raises a corruption concern. “Institutions with weak governance will not use this regulation for justice,” Anand warned. “They will use it for extortion. Someone will be threatened, pressured, and asked to pay to make a complaint disappear. This opens an entirely new avenue for institutional corruption.”
No Protection for the Accused
The tenth and final argument targets due process. “The person accused under this regulation has no protection whatsoever, even if the accusation is proven entirely false,” Anand said. “That is not justice. That is a jungle — a complete abandonment of rule of law.”
The Supreme Court’s stay order has been widely interpreted as an implicit endorsement of these criticisms. A final ruling is still awaited.
“Any civilised, future-oriented society that believes in equality for all must not merely oppose this regulation — it must dismantle it,” Anand concluded.
Why Blaming Brahmins for India’s Social Failures Is Dishonest
Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn
